Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Bridging weather and climate -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: weatherguru who wrote (262)	4/11/2017 11:38:39 AM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Recommended By miraje Respond to of 270

CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas that Raises Global temperature. Period!by Dr. Tim Ball on February 15, 2012 in Atmosphere, Data, Philosophy, Theory There are two groups in the climate debate: those who believe human CO2 is causing global warming/climate change and those who don’t, respectively labeled Warmists and Skeptics. Warmists try to deny the difference, arguing skeptics are simply wrong. They refuse to debate, claiming the debate is over, which is like saying the science is settled. Both sides believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas causing warming, but disagree on the amount. Warmists claim it explains 90 percent, Skeptics an insignificant amount. Both avoid the real issue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, as demonstrated in the book Slaying the Sky Dragon. Warmists claim their computer models prove it. Skeptics do it by talking about climate sensitivity. They are both wrong, but the Skeptics are still practicing science and will adjust their views. It’s the difference between the science and political science of climatology. The Warmist position is fixed because it was achieved by corruption of the science and the scientific method. Science advances through proposing a hypothesis. Scientists then function as skeptics and challenge the assumptions on which they are based. The hypothesis became fact through the design of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It’s the pattern of science driven by environmentalism as a political agenda. Deliberate personal and professional attacks sidelined the few who tried to be scientific skeptics. These attacks were reinforced by mainstream media, who also accepted and promoted the hypothesis. Warmists were on a treadmill defending the hypothesis. Over 6000 leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) delineate the challenges and political rather than scientific responses. It required three major activities. A steady flow of material that appeared to provide proof; rejection of evidence that contradicted the hypothesis; and efforts to silence critics and control research and publications. Several years ago at a conference someone questioned CO2 as a greenhouse gas. A senior climate skeptic gave what I considered a political answer. He said it was foolish to say it was not a greenhouse gas. The best approach is to say the human contribution was insignificant. I disagreed, but had inadequate understanding of physics to openly challenge. My concern as a climatologist was that too many pieces didn’t fit or were ignored in the complex weather systems that, on average, are climate. Most troubling initially was the effective omission of water vapor as a greenhouse gas (Figure 1). Figure 1: Pamphlet circulated by Environment Canada in 2001 Then we learned that in the much touted Antarctic ice core record temperature increased before CO2, contradicting the main assumption of the Warmists’ hypothesis. From the start IPCC computer model predictions were wrong so they switched to projections and scenarios but were still wrong. I put these findings with other problems to conclude that the only place in the world where a CO2 increase precedes and causes a temperature increase is in global climate models. IPCC models are programmed so a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase despite the evidence. In a classic circular argument, the IPCC then argue that their models prove CO2 increase causes temperature increase. Here is a summary by Friends of Science member Norm Kalmanovitch of the problems and avoidance mechanisms using climate models. Energy flux is perfectly fine for GCM models which operate on energy transfer rates but these models cannot have their output converted to temperature values because temperature requires a time factor during which the energy flux was operating and no such time factor is available. (This is why computer models are unable to give a timeline; that is when their forecasts will occur.) Simply put, the GCM models are completely incapable of attributing forcing to CO2 and completely incapable attributing forcing to global temperature. The entire climate change issue has been fabricated on the basis of these models through the introduction of a CO2 forcing parameter that has no physical basis and was fraudulently created for the sole purpose of relating CO2 emissions to global temperature when no such relationship possibly existed. Since the output from GCM models is in W/m^2 a second fabricated parameter was required to convert flux to temperature; another conversion that has no possible physical relationship that can be validated by data. This parameter called climate sensitivity was simply the value that converted the output energy flux to temperature that best fit the temperature data back to 1960 in Hansen’s 1988 paper. essay writing service Now the Skeptics are dividing as they gradually recognize that neither CO2, nor its ersatz substitute climate sensitivity, function as greenhouse gases to raise global temperature or cause climate change. Studies appear more frequently reducing the climate sensitivity as they gradually accommodate the accumulating evidence. Many Skeptics dismissed and attacked the scientific evidence presented in the book Slaying the Sky Dragon, now more accept. I joined the project because the physicists confirmed my concerns about the political position taken by Skeptics. The science is settled and the debate is over for the Warmists. However, science continues with the Skeptics, as it should. zp8497586rq Related articles: The Greenhouse Effect: Everybody Talks About It But Few Know What It Is Why is Water Vapour, the Most Important Greenhouse Gas, Ignored? What is the US President Talking About? IPCC Obsession With Temperature Distorts Climate Change Science Disastrous Computer Model Predictions: From Limits to Growth to Global Warming drtimball.com

To: weatherguru who wrote (262)	10/13/2017 6:17:26 PM
From: TideGlider	1 Recommendation Recommended By weatherguru Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 270

Thousands of penguin chicks starve in Antarctica AFP Relax News•October 13, 2017 <img alt="" class="StretchedBox W(100%) H(100%) ie-7_H(a)" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/vc4NIpAkhSH9Vm9A.1cQzw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NTY2O2g9NDAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://media.zenfs.com/en_US/News/US-AFPRelax/000_nh544.9e079154448.original.jpg" itemprop="url"/> Surviving mostly on a diet of krill -- a small shrimp-like crustacean -- Adelie penguins, slick and efficient swimmers, have been generally faring well in East Antarctica. More Mass starvation has wiped out thousands of penguin chicks in Antarctica, with unusually thick sea ice forcing their parents to forage further for food in what conservationists Friday called a "catastrophic breeding failure". French scientists, supported by WWF, have been studying a colony of 18,000 pairs of Adelie penguins in East Antarctica since 2010 and discovered only two chicks survived the most recent breeding season in early 2017. Related Searches Antarctic Penguin Baby Penguin Antarctica Animals Penguin Magic Penguin Oasis They attributed the disaster to extensive sea ice late in the summer, meaning the adult penguins had to travel further to find food, with the chicks dying as they waited. Yan Ropert-Coudert, senior penguin scientist at Dumont D'Urville research station, adjacent to the colony, said the region was impacted by environmental changes linked to the breakup of the Mertz glacier. "The conditions are set for this to happen more frequently due to the breaking of the Mertz glacier in 2010 that changed the configuration of the stretch of sea in front of the colony," he told AFP. "But there are other factors needed to have a zero year: a mix of temperature, wind direction and strength, no opening of polynya in front of the colony." A polynya is an area of unfrozen sea within an ice pack. He added that the coming season seemed to be better for the birds in terms of sea ice "but we never know how it will turn unfortunately". Surviving mostly on a diet of krill -- a small shrimp-like crustacean -- Adelie penguins, slick and efficient swimmers, have been generally faring well in East Antarctica. But they have been declining in the Antarctic region more generally where climate change has taken its toll, with shifting ice reducing habitat while warming seas affect their prey. Four years ago, the same colony, which numbered 20,196 pairs at the time, failed to produce a single chick. Heavy sea ice, combined with unusually warm weather and rain followed by a rapid drop in temperature, resulted in them becoming saturated and freezing to death. News of the penguin's problems came ahead of an annual meeting next week in Hobart of the 25-member Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). Last year CCAMLR agreed to create the world's largest marine sanctuary covering more than 1.55 million square kilometres (600,000 square miles) -- roughly the size of Britain, Germany and France combined -- in the Ross Sea area of Antarctica. But time ran out on a second proposed protected area in East Antarctica, covering another one million square kilometre zone, where the penguins died. Hopes are high it will get the green light this time with WWF's head of polar programmes Rod Downie saying it would help secure the future for Adelie penguins. "The risk of opening up this area to exploratory krill fisheries, which would compete with the Adelie penguins for food as they recover from two catastrophic breeding failures in four years, is unthinkable," he said. 155 reactions 5%73%22% Sign in to post a message. 104 viewing Top Reactions 1 person reacting R Realist 11 hours ago You see, thin ice = global warming. Thick ice = global warming. Since the polar bears are thriving, which destroyed a popular global warming meme, they will now move to penguins. Dishonesty and fraud are rampant in climate science. ReplyReplies (16) 2443 R Rob Bruce 11 hours ago So let me get this straight, because the ice hasn't melted and the chicks died, that is because of man-made global warming? You idiots have no credibility what so ever. ReplyReplies (7) 1541 S Sean 11 hours ago Thick ice, that is probably going to be attributed to global warming by the end of the week. ReplyReplies (5) 1361